Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Efficient Organization of SEC Business

We will continue to be faced with this problem as long as
we rely exclusively on the services of volunteers,
who have full time paying jobs that take priority over
their duties as members of the SEC.

Note that the IEEE-SA BoG and StB operate much differently.
Most of the leg work is performed by paid staff. The volunteers
contribute their insights and direction, and then review the
work done by the staff.  In contrast to the inefficient and
arduous method that the SEC uses to modify its P&P, the BoG
and the StB are generally able propose, formulate, resolve,
and reach closure on changes to their Operations Manual and
Bylaws in a timely, efficient and deterministic fashion.

I think that it is time for the SEC to consider retaining
paid staff support, specifically to assist with the task
of formulating and resolving changes to our P&P.
It might also be useful to have this person maintain the
project status summary.

I have asked Karen Rupp of the IEEE-SA staff to formulate
a proposal to provide this service. I expect that we will
be able to discuss this proposal at the July meeting, in
the context of the Education, Mentoring and Support program.

Howard Frazier wrote:

> Hi Roger,
> I'm afraid I have to catch a lot of the flack on the rules issues.
> Maintaining the rules is one of the duties assigned to the second Vice
> Chair (me).  I've been debating myself on how the improve the process,
> and do plan to raise the issue at the July Plenary.  I think part of the
> problem is the number of rules changes we have ongoing.  We had 5
> planned for this cycle, 3 of which I am running.  This is a lot of work
> in addition to other work that is not part of my regular assignments,
> and interruptive in nature. I don't think we used to do so many rules
> changes at once.  But we suddenly have become aware of a number of
> deficiencies in our rules and are struggling to deal with them as
> expediently as possible.
> FYI, I've had an updated version of the rules for a month or so under
> review by a couple of individuals to do error checking before releasing
> it.  It does incorporate all the rules changes you mentioned.  I have
> just this week given a "final" copy to Paul and Bob O'Hara.  The one
> hang up is the creation of the PDF with Bookmarks.  I've been unable to
> get the auto bookmark generation running on my machine, and I've asked
> Bob / Paul to help me on that.  When that gets cleared up the document
> will be released.  Hopefully, there will be less editorial issues this
> time, but honestly the more we amend the document, the more editorials
> seem to creep in.  I'm also a little uncomfortable about assuming any
> editorial license in the process, so I will be slow to fix most
> editorials.
> Anyway, my apologies for the apparent bugs in the process.  I am working
> it as best I can.
> Regards,
> Mat
> Matthew Sherman 
> Vice Chair, IEEE 802 
> Technology Consultant 
> Communications Technology Research 
> AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory 
> Room B255, Building 103 
> 180 Park Avenue 
> P.O. Box 971 
> Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 
> Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 
> Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [] 
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:35 PM
> To: Paul Nikolich
> Cc:
> Subject: [802SEC] Efficient Organization of SEC Business
> At 7:34 AM -0400 03/06/23, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>>Attached is the initial draft of the July plenary session opening 
>>SEC meeting agenda, please review and send requests for revisions to 
> Paul,
> I'd like the agenda to include a DT on "Efficient Organization of SEC 
> Business".
> The general issue is that I am very disappointed at the organization 
> of the work in front of the SEC. Over the last year or so, I have 
> been constantly confused about what is going on and where we stand. 
> I've doing a little thinking about why. Maybe I'm just growing old, 
> but I've also identified some other causes. I think they need to be 
> fixed.
> Here are some specific issues I'd like us to address:
> (1) We are currently in the middle of many (don't ask me how many) 
> rules change ballots. It is very difficult or impossible to change 
> the rules without knowing the rules. How current are the currently 
> posted rules? I don't know. On the cover, they say "Revised effective 
> July 12, 2002." The PDF Title is "802 Operating Rules, Revised 
> effective July 14, 2000." The PDF creation/mod dates are 15/16 
> October 2002. In any case, I would presume that no changes from the 
> November and March meetings are incorporated. I've just done some 
> research. To my knowledge, we approved one change in November ("SEC 
> TAG rule change") and two in March ("SEC Electronic Ballots") and 
> ("Rules Title Change"). There may be even more changes that we made 
> to the rules but have not been incorporated in the rules. Where do we 
> turn to find the facts?
> (1a) As an aside: we changed the balloting rules in March. Are we 
> following them?
> (1b) As another aside: during my research, I discovered at least one 
> rules change ballot that we voted in March to initiate but which, to 
> my recollection, has not been initiated ("rules change on Sponsor 
> Ballot periods for SEC ballot"). Maybe we've already balloted this 
> and I've forgotten. Or maybe there are more that fell through the 
> cracks. How should I find out?
> (2) There is essentially no web support for the SEC's work. This is 
> causing serious problems. We don't need a lot, but we need, at a 
> minimum, a catalog of on-going and completed ballots, as Tony and I 
> discussed in April:
> We need this to help the SEC members do their work, and we need it so 
> we have an archive of past decisions.
> We also need a catalog of materials for upcoming meetings. I have, 
> for example, been cataloging PAR proposals:
> but this is not the complete story.
> In my Working Group, we wouldn't think of carrying on our activity 
> without this kind of web-based organization.
> Last summer, when we discussed adding a 2nd Vice Chair, I suggested 
> that we follow 802.11's example by assigning specific duties to the 
> two. I mentioned, for example, the need to have a particular person 
> in charge of the rules, so that things wouldn't fall through the 
> cracks. I also said that, with two Vice Chairs, we ought to have 
> enough labor to support functions like web site support (I also 
> mentioned publicity). I didn't get my way; instead, the rules say "A 
> Vice Chair will be responsible for such duties as may be assigned by 
> the LMSC Chair." And things are falling through the cracks.
> So, can we add this issue to the agenda?
> Roger